French company liable after employee dies during extra-marital sex with stranger on business trip

[ruby sparks]

I'm not sure what to make of this interesting news item, but on the face of it, it doesn't seem fair to hold the employer responsible.

"A French company has been found liable for the death of an employee who had a cardiac arrest while having sex with a stranger on a business trip.

A Paris court ruled that his death was an industrial accident and that the family was entitled to compensation.

The firm had argued the man was not carrying out professional duties when he joined a guest in her hotel room.

But under French law an employer is responsible for any accident occurring during a business trip, judges said.

The man, named as Xavier X, was working as an engineer for TSO, a railway services company based near Paris.

He died at a hotel during a trip to central France in 2013, as a result of what the employer called "an extramarital relationship with a perfect stranger" "

French company liable after employee dies during sex on business trip
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49662134

 

[bigfield]

An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection "over the whole time of his mission" and regardless of the circumstances, [the Paris appeals court] said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09...employee-dies-during-sex-on-business/11504708

The ruling rests upon a decision 10 years ago when French courts ruled that any deaths, injuries or accidents suffered by employees on work trips were an "accident du travail".

Seems a tad broad.

 

[fromderinside]

Seems to be a bit like the Marin county judge who ruled lad was a good boy so no time for rape. How can a heart attack be construed as an accident when it is due to the family member misbehaving wilfully when he knew he had heart problems. I believe it is still employee responsibility to communicate any medical condition that may interfere with work. Judges just wanted to put it to the company concerned because the guy was a good boy. Bad precedent. It'll be overturned by higher court.

Really pisses me off to see this when during an economic downturn seven of my associates within department died of heart attacks prior to retirement resulting in reduction of benefits for families. Now that should be something compensated.

 

[ronburgundy]

Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.

 

[bilby]

An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection "over the whole time of his mission" and regardless of the circumstances, [the Paris appeals court] said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09...employee-dies-during-sex-on-business/11504708

The ruling rests upon a decision 10 years ago when French courts ruled that any deaths, injuries or accidents suffered by employees on work trips were an "accident du travail".

Seems a tad broad.

Perhaps, but not insanely so.

The employee wouldn't have been where he was, if not for the demands of his job.

The prurient detail that he was having an affair and died during sex is irrelevant; If he had been killed by stepping out in front of a bus, French law is clear - he would have been somewhere else if not on a business trip, so the death is work related.

Australian employment law has a similar provision for 'journey claims' - if you are injured on the way to or from work, you can claim against workcover for the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation. Such claims are more limited in scope than under French law, but in both cases, it's necessary for a tribunal or court to rule whether unusual or unclear circumstances qualify.

And in both cases it's just bureaucratic red tape - deciding which governmental or quasi-governmental department will be financially liable.

 

[bilby]

Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.

This is France. Unlike in the USA, French companies do not own their employees, and have no say of any kind about what they do when not actively and explicitly working. Any employer in France who even hinted at telling employees how to behave when off the clock - even when on a business trip - would be in serious trouble before you could say "industrial action".

Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seems to be a bit like the Marin county judge who ruled lad was a good boy so no time for rape. How can a heart attack be construed as an accident when it is due to the family member misbehaving wilfully when he knew he had heart problems. I believe it is still employee responsibility to communicate any medical condition that may interfere with work. Judges just wanted to put it to the company concerned because the guy was a good boy. Bad precedent. It'll be overturned by higher court.

Really pisses me off to see this when during an economic downturn seven of my associates within department died of heart attacks prior to retirement resulting in reduction of benefits for families. Now that should be something compensated.

Sounds like the law counts natural-causes deaths while at work.

 

[ronburgundy]

Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.

This is France. Unlike in the USA, French companies do not own their employees, and have no say of any kind about what they do when not actively and explicitly working. Any employer in France who even hinted at telling employees how to behave when off the clock - even when on a business trip - would be in serious trouble before you could say "industrial action".

IOW, this is France where irrational internally contradictory laws forbid a company from hiring and firing people who do things that harm themselves, others, or the company, but then say that the company is responsible for hiring people that do things that that harm themselves, others, and the company.

Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

I agree, but no less bizarre, unreasonable and antithetical to liberty and freedom than the employee or their estate being able to hold the company responsible for actions directly resulting from freely chosen behaviors by the employee on their own time outside of any work duties. Actual freedom is inherently tethered to personal responsibility, if people are not held personally responsible for your own chosen actions, then no one is actually free. Likewise, liability is a direct logical consequence of who has control. If party A is held liable for X, that implies they have control over whether X occurs which means that others do not have the freedom to do X without party A having control. Thus, if a company is liable for a person dying due to having sex, then the ruling implies that the company had legal control over whether the person had sex and failed to exercise that control to prevent the death. So, either the French court thinks the company should be allowed to control everything employees do during a business trip, or the the court is violating the basic logical and legal principle that tethers liability to control.

 

[bilby]

IOW, this is France where irrational internally contradictory laws forbid a company from hiring and firing people who do things that harm themselves, others, or the company, but then say that the company is responsible for hiring people that do things that that harm themselves, others, and the company.

Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

I agree, but no less bizarre, unreasonable and antithetical to liberty and freedom than the employee or their estate being able to hold the company responsible for actions directly resulting from freely chosen behaviors by the employee on their own time outside of any work duties. Actual freedom is inherently tethered to personal responsibility, if people are not held personally responsible for your own chosen actions, then no one is actually free. Likewise, liability is a direct logical consequence of who has control. If party A is held liable for X, that implies they have control over whether X occurs which means that others do not have the freedom to do X without party A having control. Thus, if a company is liable for a person dying due to having sex, then the ruling implies that the company had legal control over whether the person had sex and failed to exercise that control to prevent the death. So, either the French court thinks the company should be allowed to control everything employees do during a business trip, or the the court is violating the basic logical and legal principle that tethers liability to control.

Americans are so cute when they talk about freedom as though they actually understand it.

You can't be free unless you are bound by my set of legal principles!

The false dichotomy that requires control to be either absolute or non-existent is a problem for your attempt at reasoning; But it isn't a feature of reality, so reality isn't bound by it. Not everyone shares your fundamental principles - and their right to disregard them is a necessary condition of freedom.

Americans really love authoritarian rules. And talking about how free they are. It's a total mystery.

 

[ronburgundy]

IOW, this is France where irrational internally contradictory laws forbid a company from hiring and firing people who do things that harm themselves, others, or the company, but then say that the company is responsible for hiring people that do things that that harm themselves, others, and the company.

Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

I agree, but no less bizarre, unreasonable and antithetical to liberty and freedom than the employee or their estate being able to hold the company responsible for actions directly resulting from freely chosen behaviors by the employee on their own time outside of any work duties. Actual freedom is inherently tethered to personal responsibility, if people are not held personally responsible for your own chosen actions, then no one is actually free. Likewise, liability is a direct logical consequence of who has control. If party A is held liable for X, that implies they have control over whether X occurs which means that others do not have the freedom to do X without party A having control. Thus, if a company is liable for a person dying due to having sex, then the ruling implies that the company had legal control over whether the person had sex and failed to exercise that control to prevent the death. So, either the French court thinks the company should be allowed to control everything employees do during a business trip, or the the court is violating the basic logical and legal principle that tethers liability to control.

Americans are so cute when they talk about freedom as though they actually understand it.

You can't be free unless you are bound by my set of legal principles!

The false dichotomy that requires control to be either absolute or non-existent is a problem for your attempt at reasoning; But it isn't a feature of reality, so reality isn't bound by it. Not everyone shares your fundamental principles - and their right to disregard them is a necessary condition of freedom.

Americans really love authoritarian rules. And talking about how free they are. It's a total mystery.

Your inability to grasp basic logic combined with intellectual dishonesty is what allows you to deny the objective fact that liability logically presumes the ability to control, and that freedom of any person is logically dependent on the degree to which any other person is responsible for that person's actions.

Your position is directly anti-thetical to freedom. You think that people should be imprisoned if other people who they are not allowed to influence do something of their own will that has negative consequences. The fact that you only apply this fascism to people who qualify as an "employer" just speaks to the total lack of principles you have and your notion of "freedom" is doing whatever you want to harm people you view as economic adversaries.

 

[ruby sparks]

Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.

This is France. Unlike in the USA, French companies do not own their employees, and have no say of any kind about what they do when not actively and explicitly working. Any employer in France who even hinted at telling employees how to behave when off the clock - even when on a business trip - would be in serious trouble before you could say "industrial action".

Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

 

[bilby]

Americans are so cute when they talk about freedom as though they actually understand it.

You can't be free unless you are bound by my set of legal principles!

The false dichotomy that requires control to be either absolute or non-existent is a problem for your attempt at reasoning; But it isn't a feature of reality, so reality isn't bound by it. Not everyone shares your fundamental principles - and their right to disregard them is a necessary condition of freedom.

Americans really love authoritarian rules. And talking about how free they are. It's a total mystery.

Your inability to grasp basic logic combined with intellectual dishonesty is what allows you to deny the objective fact that liability logically presumes the ability to control, and that freedom of any person is logically dependent on the degree to which any other person is responsible for that person's actions.

Your position is directly anti-thetical to freedom. You think that people should be imprisoned if other people who they are not allowed to influence do something of their own will that has negative consequences. The fact that you only apply this fascism to people who qualify as an "employer" just speaks to the total lack of principles you have and your notion of "freedom" is doing whatever you want to harm people you view as economic adversaries.

That you actually believe the bullshit that companies and corporations are people, and entitled to the same moral consideration as real human individuals is terribly sad.

There is such a thing as an organization. It isn't a person; Nor is it a mere assemblage of several persons. It isn't entitled to freedom, or to anything else. And it is perfectly reasonable to impose upon it liabilities without control or influence, because no person is required to join it if they do not like the imposition.

And oddly, whenever this is pointed out to an American, they respond by talking about how their interlocutor thinks people should be imprisoned for, well, something. Despite the notion of imprisonment not having previously arisen in the discussion.

I think that companies can reasonably be held liable for circumstances that arise due to their actions, even where a person has equal or greater control over the circumstances than does the company in question. And if people don't like that rule, they are free not to expose themselves to liabilities incurred by the company. Nobody is required to form a company or corporation. Nobody is forced to buy shares. Nobody is compelled to accept a seat on a board. And those who do these things should do so with a clear understanding of the rules that will apply to them if they do. If they don't feel that those rules are fair, then they have the free choice not to play the game.

I don't lack principles. But it is VERY telling that you cannot consider the possibility that I might have principles that do not match your own. It's like debating a religious loon - they too cannot grasp that having different principles is not synonymous with having none at all.

But what would I know - I don't agree with you, so therefore I must be intellectually dishonest. Because it's impossible that someone might have thought things through and reached a different conclusion to that of a smug git who can't even imagine a society that is less authoritarian than his own.

 

[bilby]

Terrible precedent, not just for companies but for workers. Basically, it means that companies will have to force all employees to stay hold up in their hotel rooms and never do anything outside their specific duties during any business trip.

This is France. Unlike in the USA, French companies do not own their employees, and have no say of any kind about what they do when not actively and explicitly working. Any employer in France who even hinted at telling employees how to behave when off the clock - even when on a business trip - would be in serious trouble before you could say "industrial action".

Americans are often surprised to learn just how much freedom other people have. And one of those freedoms is the freedom from interaction with employers or co-workers outside strictly delineated working hours. The idea that your employer could make demands on your time beyond the standard hours in your contract is as bizarre and unreasonable as the idea that he might mention religion, or allow it to be discussed in the workplace.

But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

Only if these things are absolute states. But they are not. The employee can do what he or she wants - conversant with being constrained by the employer's requirement that they take that business trip.

The employee is not completely free; So the employer is not completely free of liability. The rest is just the usual legal wrangling over the grey areas.

Pretending that no grey area exists, and that the employee is completely free while 'off the clock' and therefore the employer has zero liability for any misfortune he encounters, is one of many equally reasonable ways to resolve the uncertainty - but it's not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. American employment law tends to give all rights to the employer and none to the employee in such situations. Which is one way to resolve things, but it's not the best way, the only way, or the way handed down from the gods on tablets of stone.

And it's sure as shit not the solution demanded by the principles of personal liberty.

 

[ruby sparks]

But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

Only if these things are absolute states. But they are not. The employee can do what he or she wants - conversant with being constrained by the employer's requirement that they take that business trip.

The employee is not completely free; So the employer is not completely free of liability. The rest is just the usual legal wrangling over the grey areas.

Pretending that no grey area exists, and that the employee is completely free while 'off the clock' and therefore the employer has zero liability for any misfortune he encounters, is one of many equally reasonable ways to resolve the uncertainty - but it's not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. American employment law tends to give all rights to the employer and none to the employee in such situations. Which is one way to resolve things, but it's not the best way, the only way, or the way handed down from the gods on tablets of stone.

And it's sure as shit not the solution demanded by the principles of personal liberty.

I have to say it makes no sense to me in this particular case. The employer sending him on a business trip arguably had nothing, in terms of responsibility, to do with his decision to engage in what was risky behaviour on his own behalf outside working hours. What, for example, if the guy had died during a dodgy asphyxiation sex game?

 

[bilby]

But saying that the employer cannot tell an employee what to do outside working hours would imply that the worker is free to do what he or she wants in those situations. And if they are free, it seems contrary to then hold the employer responsible.

Only if these things are absolute states. But they are not. The employee can do what he or she wants - conversant with being constrained by the employer's requirement that they take that business trip.

The employee is not completely free; So the employer is not completely free of liability. The rest is just the usual legal wrangling over the grey areas.

Pretending that no grey area exists, and that the employee is completely free while 'off the clock' and therefore the employer has zero liability for any misfortune he encounters, is one of many equally reasonable ways to resolve the uncertainty - but it's not the only way, nor necessarily the best way. American employment law tends to give all rights to the employer and none to the employee in such situations. Which is one way to resolve things, but it's not the best way, the only way, or the way handed down from the gods on tablets of stone.

And it's sure as shit not the solution demanded by the principles of personal liberty.

I have to say it makes no sense to me in this particular case. The employer sending him on a business trip arguably had nothing, in terms of responsibility, to do with his decision to engage in what was risky behaviour on his own behalf outside working hours. What, for example, if the guy had died during a dodgy asphyxiation sex game?

French law says that, as his presence in that city was due to his employer requiring him to go there, they are liable. It doesn't make any distinction between different misadventures that could befall him, and his employer knew that. Essentially it's just a risk imposed on their business - they are effectively being required to insure their employees' lives while those employees are diverted from their normal lives by the requirements of their work.

I am not convinced that it's the best approach to take, but nor does it seem unreasonable or unjust - it's part of the law, and the employer should be aware that it is a risk they are liable for.

It's interesting to me that people seem to think that death during sex, or due to sex games, is somehow fundamentally different from other death by misadventure. It isn't, and I don't see why it should be. If he had decided to take a hot air balloon trip and fallen from the basket, the employer would also have been liable - and the case would have been no different in any substantive sense - but it probably wouldn't have made the news outside France. Sex sells newspapers.

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on. It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.

 

[fromderinside]

...

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on. It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.

I think your summary is why americans are so suspicious of government social welfare tendencies. Your very apt summary is so much different than the perfectly reasonable assumption american enterprise pays our government to enact and enforce.

First we put on legal lipstick by outlawing debtor prisons. Then laws are enacted that punish those who fall behind on their voluntary entered into debts multiplied by legally sanctioned outlandish interest rates are sanctioned with loss of their homes and jobs. Then laws that forbid street people are used to put people behind bars.

Not only are we noted for being tinkers we are famous for bait and switch liars.

 

[ruby sparks]

French law says that, as his presence in that city was due to his employer requiring him to go there, they are liable. It doesn't make any distinction between different misadventures that could befall him, and his employer knew that. Essentially it's just a risk imposed on their business - they are effectively being required to insure their employees' lives while those employees are diverted from their normal lives by the requirements of their work.

This is the morals & principles section of the philosophy forum, not the legal department. I do strongly disagree with you. I do not see a good argument for holding the employer responsible in this case. Essentially, someone is free to act irresponsibly, and someone else is responsible. That makes no sense to me in terms of morals and ethics.

Now, if French law was clear on this, then you might say that all parties were fully aware of their responsibilities beforehand, but I don't think it is clear. Also this year, a French professional basketball player died of a heart attack during official training session, and the employer was held by a court not to be responsible, and that incident took place in the workplace during normal working hours.

The principle that the employer is liable for misadventure of all kinds while employees are on business trips is arbitrary, and can lead to some odd outcomes. But it is no more arbitrary than any alternative legal principle; And it is perfectly reasonable, as long as all parties are aware of the liabilities and risks that they are taking on.

The alternative, that the company is not responsible in the OP case, would not seem to be arbitrary, rather it would seem to be in accord with wider notions of freedoms and consequent responsibilities that are usually applied by and to humans.

It assuredly does NOT imply that the employer should or could have a say in the choice of lawful activities employees might engage in while 'off the clock' on a business trip.

I agree. Imo, the employee should arguably be free to choose what activities to engage in outside work, and with that freedom should come personal responsibility. 'Being on a business trip' in no way obliged him to go to the home of a woman and have sex with her. He could have done that on any night of a normal working week, or at a weekend.

 

[steve_bank]

Only the French could call sex an industrial accident.

 

[fromderinside]

This is the morals & principles section of the philosophy forum, not the legal department. I do strongly disagree with you. I do not see a good argument for holding the employer responsible in this case. Essentially, someone is free to act irresponsibly, and someone else is responsible. That makes no sense to me in terms of morals and ethics.

The French government through due consideration did find a moral rationale for their law. After all, law is considered the moral baseline for a society's moral behavior.

You continue with your shift of of morality from that of governments to personal which just isn't appropriate as a counter to a government declaration.

If it were everyone would be disregarding coded national moral policy on personal grounds.

 

[fromderinside]

The employee should arguably be free to choose what activities to engage in outside work, and with that freedom should come personal responsibility. 'Being on a business trip' in no way obliged him to go to the home of a woman and have sex with her. He could have done that on any night of a normal working week, or at a weekend.

Since the law covers travel, the courts are permitted to presume the company is aware of it's special obligations with respect to employees on travel and they should get the employee to sign waivers applicable to legal abnormal situations such as out of marriage entertainment.